On Fri, 29 Jul 2011 13:34:13 -0700
Brett Cannon wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 29, 2011 at 13:16, Glyph Lefkowitz wrote:
>
> > On Jul 29, 2011, at 3:00 PM, Matt wrote:
> >
> > I don't see any real reason to drop a decent piece of code (HTMLParser,
> > that is) in favor of a third party library when only re
On Fri, Jul 29, 2011 at 13:16, Glyph Lefkowitz wrote:
> On Jul 29, 2011, at 3:00 PM, Matt wrote:
>
> I don't see any real reason to drop a decent piece of code (HTMLParser,
> that is) in favor of a third party library when only relatively minor
> updates are needed to bring it up to speed with the
On Fri, Jul 29, 2011 at 11:31, Tres Seaver wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> On 07/29/2011 07:22 AM, Joao S. O. Bueno wrote:
>
> > I disaagree. Having proper html parsing out of the box is part of
> > the "batteries included" thing. And it is not a matter of "having
> >
On Jul 29, 2011, at 3:00 PM, Matt wrote:
> I don't see any real reason to drop a decent piece of code (HTMLParser, that
> is) in favor of a third party library when only relatively minor updates are
> needed to bring it up to speed with the latest spec.
I am not really one to throw stones here,
On Fri, Jul 29, 2011 at 11:03 AM, Glyph Lefkowitz
wrote:
>
> On Jul 29, 2011, at 7:46 AM, Stefan Behnel wrote:
>
> > Joao S. O. Bueno, 29.07.2011 13:22:
> >> On Fri, Jul 29, 2011 at 1:37 AM, Stefan Behnel wrote:
> >>> Brett Cannon, 28.07.2011 23:49:
>
> On Thu, Jul 28, 2011 at 11:25, Mat
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
On 07/29/2011 07:22 AM, Joao S. O. Bueno wrote:
> I disaagree. Having proper html parsing out of the box is part of
> the "batteries included" thing. And it is not a matter of "having
> html 5" - as stated on this thread, fixing it for html5 will fix
On Jul 29, 2011, at 7:46 AM, Stefan Behnel wrote:
> Joao S. O. Bueno, 29.07.2011 13:22:
>> On Fri, Jul 29, 2011 at 1:37 AM, Stefan Behnel wrote:
>>> Brett Cannon, 28.07.2011 23:49:
On Thu, Jul 28, 2011 at 11:25, Matt wrote:
>
> - What policies are in place for keeping parity w
Joao S. O. Bueno, 29.07.2011 13:22:
On Fri, Jul 29, 2011 at 1:37 AM, Stefan Behnel wrote:
Brett Cannon, 28.07.2011 23:49:
On Thu, Jul 28, 2011 at 11:25, Matt wrote:
- What policies are in place for keeping parity with other HTML
parsers (such as those in web browsers)?
There aren't any bey
On Fri, Jul 29, 2011 at 1:37 AM, Stefan Behnel wrote:
> Brett Cannon, 28.07.2011 23:49:
>>
>> On Thu, Jul 28, 2011 at 11:25, Matt wrote:
>>>
>>> - What policies are in place for keeping parity with other HTML
>>> parsers (such as those in web browsers)?
>>
>> There aren't any beyond "it would be n
Brett Cannon, 28.07.2011 23:49:
On Thu, Jul 28, 2011 at 11:25, Matt wrote:
- What policies are in place for keeping parity with other HTML
parsers (such as those in web browsers)?
There aren't any beyond "it would be nice".
[...]
It's more of an issue of someone caring enough to do the coding
On Thu, Jul 28, 2011 at 11:25, Matt wrote:
> Hello all,
>
> I wanted to ask a few questions and start a discussion about HTML5
> support within the HTMLParser class(es). Over on issue 670664, an
> inconsistency with the way browsers and the HTMLParser parse script
> and style tags was discovered.
Hello all,
I wanted to ask a few questions and start a discussion about HTML5
support within the HTMLParser class(es). Over on issue 670664, an
inconsistency with the way browsers and the HTMLParser parse script
and style tags was discovered. Currently, HTMLParser adheres strictly
to the HTML4 sta
12 matches
Mail list logo
